I agree. Women’s constitutional rights as citizens just crashed into the “rights” (elaborated where, but in religion?) of fetuses utterly dependent on the bodies of others to even exist. The fetuses are to be brought to term by unwilling women, some of whom have been impregnated by rape or incest. Rubio sides with “fetus rights” over women’s rights, brashly claiming the constitution for fetuses, but not actual female citizens. An honest person would say that we have the constitution over here, protecting women’s rights, and religion over here, asserting the prerogatives and agendas of those who advocate, solely for religious reasons, reproduction at any cost. Rubio turns the constitution into a document that weds church and state.

“Rubio turns the constitution into a document that weds church and state.”

Social conservatives love to do exactly that. Because the phraseology “separation between church and state” isn’t found anywhere within, they assert that the Constitution’s mandate of separation between government and religion is a myth. Well, the wording “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” isn’t in there either. Does that mean that those properties of the Nation’s supreme law are myths too? But anyway, Rubio’s grind isn’t even about the rights of an unconscious, un-self aware developing fetus, but rather about some comingled DNA at the moment of fertilization. What’s next? Any human egg not brought to term is murder?